It feels as if, during a period where we’re all scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to TV, we’re being trapped by this easy-win style of TV in particular. I’m perplexed by the wider TV landscape’s commitment to these lacklustre psychosexual thrillers. Beyond everything, Behind Her Eyes is a poorly written show, largely ill-equipped to deal with any of the problems it presents. The fact that, firstly, the only gay character in the show happens to be a cis male predator who assumes the identity of a woman, and secondly, that the Black protagonist’s body is used as a means to an end, simply reeks of lazy writing that is overly reliant on old TV tropes. This points to a bigger problem with the show: the whole thing is just so sloppily executed that it feels doubtful that the makers put any thought into these potential readings.
Disconcertingly, Behind Her Eyes doesn’t display a hint of any sci-fi quality until the penultimate episode, and so the introduction of the astral projection plotline feels less like a clever twist, and more like a disorienting tailspin. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the story having a supernatural ending, but we need to understand that paranormal shenanigans are within the realms of possibility, at least before the halfway point.
As Marianka Swain wrote for The Telegraph, audiences can put up with a lot of twists and turns, but ultimately we want to feel like we understand the rules of the universe we’re entering into. The novel was described by the author herself as a “Marmite” story, and while the dramatisation was praised by some critics as “genre-bending”, I personally was deeply confused by its choice to move clunkily from romcom to drama to thriller to sci-fi as the story unfolded. The play putting women’s toilets at centre stage.Why is Sam Levinson’s Malcolm & Marie proving so controversial?.Behind Her Eyes review: One bizarre twist can’t make up for the yawning lulls.Are you still following? If you aren’t, fear not one of the most common criticisms of the show is its choice to throw a number of confusing curveballs in its final moments.
In a dramatic sequence involving another house fire, Rob then body swaps out of Adele and into Louise, going on to kill Adele’s body (also using heroin) so he can finally be with David, with whom he is, presumably, in love. Bear with me: in the final episode, we discover that Adele is not in fact Adele – she has been body swapped with Rob, who has since killed his own original body with a lethal injection of heroin. By the time we reach episode five, we come to learn that Adele has a history of engaging in the supernatural practice of "astral projection", ie using the disembodiment of the soul to travel to other places, and possess other people. This is where it all goes a bit weird, and where the spoilers come in. So far, so psychological thriller, despite it being agonisingly slow (seriously, even the affair scenes manage to be spicelessly yawn-inducing). We learn that it was here that Adele met Rob (Robert Aramayo), a gay working-class man and recovering addict with whom she fosters a close friendship. The first episodes painstakingly detail the ins and outs of receptionist Louise’s affair with David her budding, secretive friendship with David’s creepy wife Adele (Eve Hewson) her dreams the mundanities of her life at work whether her son should be allowed to go to France and flashbacks to Adele’s stay in a psychiatric facility after the loss of her parents in a house fire.
#EYES BEHIND HER SERIES#
The drama, which follows the story of divorced London mother Louise (Simona Brown), who has an affair with her psychiatrist boss David (Tom Bateman), never seems to know quite what it’s doing, or where it’s going.īased on a novel of the same name by Sarah Pinborough, the series is split into six, hour-long instalments, which feel as if they contain around 20 minutes of action each. Let’s get one thing out of the way before we commence: Behind Her Eyes – the smash-hit Netflix series with the shocking twist that everyone’s talking about – is not good.
0 kommentar(er)
